Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2063 (KAR)

Puttaswamy v. State

2020-10-16

K.S.MUDAGAL

body2020
JUDGMENT K.S.Mudagal, J. - Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, he has preferred this revision petition. 2. The petitioner was accused No.2 in Crime No.125/2003 of Badanavalu police station, Nanjangudu Taluk. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were brothers and accused No.4 was the mother of the petitioner. The said case was registered against the petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the complaint of Rachamma. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief was as follows: Accused had opposed the issuance of ration card to CW.7-PW.7. On that count, the quarrel had ensued between them. Accused came to the house of the complainant on 13.11.2003 at 3.00 p.m. in search of PW.7 and questioned PW.1 about whereabouts of PW.7 and abused her. When PW.1 questioned that, accused assaulted her. Accused No.2/petitioner twisted her left hand and assaulted on her head and caused her grievous injuries. PW.3 nephew of PW.1 was also present at the scene of offence and rescued her. PW.3 took the victim to the General Hospital, Nanjanagud. In the hospital, PW.9 medical officer examined PW.1, treated her and issued wound certificate as per Ex.P6. On 26.12.2003, PW.1 filed the complaint as per Ex.P1. 4. After investigation, the respondent police charge sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences. The trial Court after taking cognizance secured the accused and conducted the trial. The trial Court relying on the evidence of PW.1 the injured eyewitness, PW.3 the eyewitness, PW.7 the witness to the circumstance of motive, PW.9 the doctor who treated PW.1 and Ex.P6 wound certificate etc. convicted accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC. 5. The trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 to fine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC, in default to simple imprisonment of six months. For the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, the trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay fine to simple imprisonment of six months on the following grounds: (i) The incident is proved by the evidence of injured eyewitness and PW.3 the eyewitness. For the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC, the trial Court sentenced accused Nos.1 to 4 to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to pay fine to simple imprisonment of six months on the following grounds: (i) The incident is proved by the evidence of injured eyewitness and PW.3 the eyewitness. (ii) The evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.9, the medical officer who examined PW.1 and the wound certificate Ex.P6. (iii) The circumstance of motive is proved by the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.7. (iv) As per the evidence of PW.1, she has filed the complaint on the date of the incident. However, the police have registered the first information report belatedly i.e. on 26.12.2003. That lapse on the part of the police does not demolish the other evidence. (v) The lapse on the part of the police shall not cause prejudice to the victim and failure of the ends of justice. 6. Accused challenged the said order of conviction and sentence before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-IV, Mysuru in Criminal Appeal No.241/2006 and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order partly allowed the appeal. 7. Sri Sharath, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to assail the impugned orders of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner on the following grounds: (i) There was inordinate delay of 43 days in filing the complaint and registering the first information report. The Courts below failed to appreciate the contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses regarding filing of the complaint which lead to injustice. (ii) Admittedly, there was ill-will between the petitioner s family and family of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.7. The Courts below failed to notice that, due to such ill-will, the petitioner and other accused were falsely implicated in the said case. (iii) The presence of PW.3 the alleged eyewitness at the scene of offence was not probabilised. As per PW.1, it was PW.3 who took the complainant/PW.1 to the hospital and the hospital record speaks otherwise. (iv) The Courts below relying on extraneous material held that the delay was explained. According to PW.1, the delay in filing the complaint was an attempt of settlement. But PW.5 and PW.6 the witnesses to the alleged conciliation have not supported the prosecution theory. (iv) The Courts below relying on extraneous material held that the delay was explained. According to PW.1, the delay in filing the complaint was an attempt of settlement. But PW.5 and PW.6 the witnesses to the alleged conciliation have not supported the prosecution theory. Therefore, the Courts below fell in error in convicting the accused solely on the basis of evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.7. 8. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments: (i) Ram Jag v. State of U.P, (1974) 4 SCC 201 (ii) State of A.P. v. M.Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582 9. Per contra, Sri H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader seeks to support the impugned judgments and orders on the following grounds: (i) Injured eyewitness has withstood the test of cross-examination. Her evidence was corroborated by the evidence of another eyewitness PW.3 and the medical evidence. (ii) Under such circumstances, the delay in registering the first information report cannot be blown out of proportion. (iii) Accused himself admitted the motive circumstance. (iv) The lapse if any on the part of the police do not demolish the evidence of PW.1 and the doctor PW.9. (v) The concurrent findings of the Courts below cannot be interfered on such technical grounds. 10. This being a revision petition against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, convicting and sentencing the petitioner on appreciation of evidence, the scope for interference or re-appreciation of the evidence is very limited. Unless it is shown that the findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court suffer perversity or glaring illegality, the impugned orders cannot be interfered. 11. The prosecution case is based on: (i) Circumstance of motive; (ii) The evidence of injured eyewitness PW.1; (iii) The evidence of eyewitness PW.3; & (iv) The medical evidence of PW.9 the doctor who treated the injured and Ex.P6 wound certificate. 12. According to the prosecution, there was dispute between PW.7 brother of PW.1 and accused regarding issuance of ration card. On the day of the incident, the quarrel took place between PW.7 and the accused. The accused came to the house of PW.1 in search of PW.7 and when she questioned that, accused assaulted her. 13. Accused themselves suggested to PW.1 and PW.7 that there was galata between accused No.1 and PW.7 regarding issuance of ration card. On the day of the incident, the quarrel took place between PW.7 and the accused. The accused came to the house of PW.1 in search of PW.7 and when she questioned that, accused assaulted her. 13. Accused themselves suggested to PW.1 and PW.7 that there was galata between accused No.1 and PW.7 regarding issuance of ration card. Further, it is suggested to PW.1 that on the date of offence at 2.00 p.m. there was galata between PW.7 and accused No.1 Huchegowda in the Panchayath office. Even the defence of the accused is also that because of that galata, they were falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, the circumstance of motive was sufficiently established. 14. The next question is whether the evidence of PW.1 the injured was credible or that should have been discarded on the ground of delay in registering the first information report. 15. Pw.1 deposed that about two years prior to her evidence due to ill-will between accused and PW.7, accused visited her house at 3.00 p.m. searching PW.7. When she stated that PW.7 is not there, they assaulted and accused No.2 twisted her left hand and assaulted her on her head. She further deposed that PW.3 intervened and rescued her. Along with PW.3 and PW.7, she went to the police station and complained. 16. Pw.1 further stated that she had severe pain and the police sent her to the hospital and 13 days after taking the treatment, she filed the complaint. In the cross-examination of PW.1 the injuries suffered by her were not disputed. It was not even suggested to her that the injuries suffered by her were accidental one. 17. The evidence of PW.9 Senior Specialist, Nanjangud Hospital coupled with the wound certificate Ex.P6 show that on the date of the incident at 7.00 p.m., PW.1 accompanied by PW.7 came to the hospital with the history of assault by the accused. PW.9 further states that, on examination, PW.1 found to have suffered injuries mentioned in Ex.P6. He further states that PW.1 was referred to the Orthopedist and the report of Orthopedist Specialist revealed that PW.1 had suffered dislocation of left elbow bone and that was grievous injury. Apart from injury No.2, as per the evidence of PW.9 and Ex.P6, PW.1 had suffered four other simple injuries. 18. He further states that PW.1 was referred to the Orthopedist and the report of Orthopedist Specialist revealed that PW.1 had suffered dislocation of left elbow bone and that was grievous injury. Apart from injury No.2, as per the evidence of PW.9 and Ex.P6, PW.1 had suffered four other simple injuries. 18. It is important to note that in the crossexamination of PW.9, the fact of PW.1 visiting the hospital with PW.7 or history recorded therein or the injuries were not at all disputed. The only suggestion was that injury No.2 could be caused if a person trips pressing his hand to soft surfaced ground and other injuries could be caused if the person comes in contact with the ground. In other words it was an attempt to suggest that injuries were accidental one. But such suggestions were not made to PW.1 herself. PW.9 was an independent witness. Ex.P6 wound certificate was issued by him soon after the incident. Therefore, there was no chance of any concoction, manipulation or fabrication of the facts. In the light of such evidence of PW.1 and PW.9, evidence of PW.3 does not assume much significance. 19. Pw.1 unequivocally states that they went to the police station and the police sent her to the hospital. Under such circumstances, if at all there was any lapse on the part of the police in not registering the first information report immediately, the whole case of the prosecution cannot be discarded. 20. Having suffered such grievous injury, PW.1 had no reason to shield true culprits if any or falsely implicate the petitioner and other accused. The theory of any other person being assailant or injury being accidental one was not suggested to PW.1 in her crossexamination. Therefore, even if PW.5 and PW.6 do not speak to support the theory of any conciliation or panchayat, the fact of the petitioner and other accused being assailants cannot be disbelieved. 21. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 who said to have assaulted PW.1 were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for the charges brought against them. Therefore, even if PW.5 and PW.6 do not speak to support the theory of any conciliation or panchayat, the fact of the petitioner and other accused being assailants cannot be disbelieved. 21. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 who said to have assaulted PW.1 were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court for the charges brought against them. Though the First Appellate Court acquitted them of the charges under Sections 341 and 325 read with Section 34 of IPC on the ground of lack of evidence of common intention, convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to simple imprisonment of eight months. Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have not challenged the said order of conviction and sentence. Therefore, the prosecution case that accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 along with accused No.2 petitioner came to the house of PW.1 and assaulted her has attained finality. On that count also, this revision petition fails. 22. The judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case. This Court does not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned orders. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.